Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion
Pulsed phase cannon redirect ;Pulse phase cannon : A redirect to pulsed phase cannon; however, while "puls'ed' phase cannon" has been mentioned, the term "pulse phase cannon" has not. It's a minor issue, but I don't really think this redirect is necessary. --From Andoria with Love 06:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC) * Delete: Sure, just remember to fix all the links (about 6 last I checked) this time.--Tim Thomason 10:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC) *'Delete', but consider a redirect as it appears likely the mistake will be repeated in the future, requiring another deletion. (Not sure what the convention on the site is as to common misspelled words.) Aholland 13:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC) *'keep as useful. -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 00:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Unneeded starship class templates ; Template:AndromedaClassStarships, Template:DenevaClassStarships, Template:FederationClassStarships, Template:KorolevClassStarships, Template:MediterraneanClassStarships, Template:NiagaraClassStarships, Template:OlympicClassStarships, Template:RigelClassStarships, Template:SpringfieldClassStarships, Template:SteamrunnerClassStarships, Template:WambunduClassStarships (2 ships listed); Template:CheyenneClassStarships, Template:ChimeraClassStarships, Template:Hokule‘aClassStarships, Template:MercedClassStarships, Template:NorwayClassStarships, Template:SaberClassStarships, Template:SoyuzClassStarships, Template:WellsClassStarships, Template:YorkshireClassStarships, Template:ZodiacClassStarships (1 ship listed): I don't think we need templates for classes with only two ships attached to them... especially since half of the ships listed may be deleted, leaving only one ship listed on each, making the templates even more unnecessary. --From Andoria with Love 07:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC) :* I vote Delete as I believe the minimum should be kept at 3 starships, as per my wishes on a talk page somewhere. I don't think it's a good idea, and it looks better with 3+ to me. (BTW, you're supposed to add the deletion template to a template's talk page).--Tim Thomason 10:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC) :*'Delete' Aholland 12:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC) :*Definitely delete those with only one ship, as those are simply unnecessary. I'm not so sure about those with more than one, though, and vote to keep those for the moment - we either want direct links between ships of the same class or we don't, independent of the actual number of known ships of that class. For consistency, shouldn't we have these navigation templates whenever there is something to navigate? -- Cid Highwind 13:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC) :*'Delete' seeing as it's kind of redundant to have single link templates. For two ships, it's kind of iffy, but definitely keep those that have more than three links. - Enzo Aquarius 16:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC) **I've seperated those with one ship listed from those with two. --From Andoria with Love 22:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC) *'Keep'. Useful for navigation, I use them all the time. Jaz talk | novels 23:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' per Cid. --Galaxy001 00:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC) UESPA Headquarters ; UESPA Headquarters : Does this even need its own article? The UESPA article basically states that "UESPA was headquartered at UESPA Headquarters" (d'oh!), and this article doesn't tell us anything else. Besides, the main UESPA article is the only one linking to this at the moment - it seems to me as if the term should be "UESPA _h_eadquarters" instead, and not linked to a separate article. If necessary, we could create a redirect, although I don't even see a need for that at the moment. -- Cid Highwind 09:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC) *Yeah, this info is already present at the main UESPA page, I don't think there's a need to have a seperate article with the same info. As you said, it doesn't really tell us anything else. Delete. The line must be drawn here! This far! No farther! --From Andoria with Love 10:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. Aholland 12:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC) *'Keep' -- this was referenced in canon dialogue as an actual place. -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 22:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC) **Neither the pages linked to above nor the actual dialogue are really that unambiguous, I think. -- Cid Highwind 23:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC) * Keep, in Charlie X Kirk alerts UESPA headquarters of the destruction of the Antaries. Thus there is a headquarter. *'Delete'. The article does not contain any useful information (other than what can be derived from the name) and should remain a red link to avoid confusion and ecourage it to be devoped. Jaz talk | novels 23:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Borderlands ;Borderlands * This is an example of fan gaming, a troublesome precedent would be created by keeping one person's homemade roleplayer, and not everybody's. External links to fan gaming can be added to fan gaming. -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 22:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC) :* Delete. We finally got rid of FlashTrek, and here comes another one. Oy! :P --From Andoria with Love 22:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC) :* It is also an obvious attempt at advertising that website by linking to it seven(!) times from the article. Delete. -- Cid Highwind 23:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC) *Archivist who created the article has requested its removal (user talk:Truemper), deleting -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 23:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Interstellar travel * Although there may be a practical reason for this article, if written properly, however, in it's current format, there is ZERO Trek relevancy to this article. --Alan del Beccio 00:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC) *'Delete', although we may be able to merge some info with the Warp drive page or something. But otherwise, although it is a great article, it has no relevance to star trek the way it is written. In other words, per Alan. :P --Galaxy001 00:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. This is, essentially, the Alderson Drive from Niven's "The Mote in God's Eye". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alderson_drive. Aholland 01:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Talk:Amazon Standardized Inventory Number I've noticed Memory Alpha has instituted an ASIN template for ordering from Amazon, and since the ASIN page I created has been deleted, I suppose we might as well delete the corresponding talk page--Robert Treat 03:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC). :Deleted. --From Andoria with Love 23:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC) More starship prototypes USS Danube, USS Springfield Since we got rid of the rest of these non-canon prototypes, lets get rid of these, (keep first part of USS Springfield though.) Ensign q 19:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC) :If neither of these can be found in a permitted resource (the Star Trek Encyclopedia, production art, etc.) they should go. Aholland 19:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC) :Does the DS9 tecnnical manual count as that? - Ensign q 20:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC) :: Yeah, I was going to drop an FYI to Aholland, as it appears he didnt seem to notice the reference to the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual cited to the Danube page. As for the Springfield, it was simply something that was overlooked (in part because there is a legitimate Springfield) yesterday while cleaning out the other "prototypes". I'm going to take care of it now as an addendum to the corrections that were made the day before last. --Alan del Beccio 20:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC) ::::I actually didn't look at the article for the Danube; I assumed that the suggestion was being made because no citation was given. That'll teach me! Anyway, I believe the DS9 Tech Manual is a Restricted Validity Resource under the canon policy. I believe it also fits the criteria for potential use of information inside it (depending on the data in question) as the basis for an article. If the ship was included in that, it should be able to stay here. Aholland 20:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Very well, until further notice, will remove the warning. however, I will reinstate the warning if it turns out it is not metioned in the ds9 tech manual. Ensign q 21:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC) ::Fair enough. I would check it out for you but, alas, don't have a copy handy right now. Aholland 22:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)